Coghlan v. Williams
| Decision Date | 09 April 1904 |
| Docket Number | 13,591 |
| Parties | DENNIS COGHLAN v. J. T. WILLIAMS et al |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1904.
Error from Leavenworth district court; J. H. GILLPATRICK, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. PRACTICE, SUPREME COURT -- Constitutional Question, if Any, Held Waived. Where, for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, the trial judge certifies that a constitutional question is involved in proceedings in error commenced in this court, and no reference is made in the oral argument or in the brief of plaintiff in error to anything of the kind and no such question is involved in any of the matters argued in this court, it will be assumed that, if there be a constitutional question in the case, it has been waived.
2. PRACTICE, SUPREME COURT -- When a Constitutional Question Only will be Reviewed. When the amount in controversy is such that this court has no jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the lower court, but there is attached to the case-made a certificate of the trial judge that there is a constitutional question involved, this court will not review any other question in the case.
S. E. Wheat, for plaintiff in error.
J. H. Wendorff, and C. P. Rutherford, for defendants in error.
OPINION
This lawsuit grew out of a proceeding to establish the corners and boundaries of defendant's land. After the filing of the surveyor's report the plaintiff appealed to the district court, where the survey was set aside because of some irregularities in the proceeding. The court appointed a surveyor who made a survey, determined the boundaries, located the corners of the land, and made his report to the court. This report was confirmed. The plaintiff prosecutes this error to reverse the several orders and final judgment of the court.
The jurisdiction of this court is challenged for the reason that the amount in controversy does not exceed $ 100, exclusive of costs. The record does not disclose the amount or value in controversy. To this record is attached a certificate, signed by the judge who tried the cause, stating that a constitutional question is involved. There was no constitutional question presented in the oral argument or in plaintiff's brief. Not being informed what question of constitutional law is involved or what the contention of plaintiff upon such question may be, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. The Chicago Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company
... ... J. 389; 2 R. C. L. 35.) This point has been ... incidentally noted in Mo. P. Rly. Co. v ... Kimball, 48 Kan. 384, 29 P. 604; Coghlan v ... Williams, 69 Kan. 144, 76 P. 394; Griggs v ... Hanson, 86 Kan. [127 Kan. 330] 632, 634, 121 P. 1094; ... Harrington v. Missouri P ... ...
-
Griggs v. Hanson
...only the constitutional questions are open for consideration. (See Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Kimball, 48 Kan. 384, 29 P. 604; Coghlan v. Williams, 69 Kan. 144, 76 P. 394.) course of law under the state constitution and due process of law under the federal constitution mean the same thing, and no......
- Jordan v. The Western Union Telegraph Company